The Mound of Sound

One thing common to the fundamentalist, far-right movements is their utter contempt for our judicial systems, especially judges who, following the law, make decisions the social conservatives don’t like.

In the U.S., the upcoming mid-term elections will see voters presented with a host of initiatives aimed directly at judicial independence.

The South Dakota initiative would enable citizens to sue judges over their rulings. There is a wide range of initiatives in various states; some call for term-limits, others for the ability to recall judges, still others providing for elected judges. The list goes on.

The far right portrays these iniatives as populist, democratic. Opponents see them as a direct assault on judicial independence and the undermining of America’system of checks and balances.

Electing judges is worse than horrible. It produces a bench beholden to their campaign contributors, always making rulings with an eye to the next election. That, in a word, is corruption of the judicial system. Introducing coersive measures such as recall or liability to law suits by losers completely undermines democracy.

Imagine how you much you would like to be in a court case in which the other side’s lawyer was a big contributor to the judge’s election campaigns. Imagine what it would be like to find yourself in litigation with an opponent renowned for suing judges who didn’t go his way.

America has entered a dark and brutishy period and these initiatives are highly reflective of that. We Canadians would do well to pay attention before that same sort of thing begins happening here.

Pack journalism is a real problem in the western world. Too often our newspapers’ take on stories sounds and is almost identical. We are fortunate that the internet allows us to go to other sources, online editions of papers from other countries. That gives us a chance to see what they’re actually thinking, not just what our reporters tell us they’re thinking.

I found a terrific piece by Evan Goldstein in the latest edition of Haaretz.com, an Israeli paper, on the on the importance of free speech and tolerance of dissent to Israel’s survival:

“Writing in the influential New York Review of Books, [celebrated historian, Tony] Judt argued that we have moved beyond the parochial notion that the nation-state is the locus of political life. Harder words followed. He proceeded to declare the very idea of a Jewish state as hopelessly “rooted in another time and place.” As Judt describes it, the transnational ethos of our age demands that Jews, once again, invest their trust in the collective humanity of civilization (and, more specifically, in the political competence and decency of Palestinians).

“In a world where nations and peoples increasingly intermingle and intermarry at will; where cultural and national impediments to communication have all but collapsed; where more and more of us have multiple elective identities and would feel falsely constrained if we had to answer to just one of them; in such a world Israel is truly an anachronism. And not just an anachronism but a dysfunctional one.”

“The Jews, it seems, were late to the party. But not just late, irremediably late. Judt warned his readers that, “the time has come to think the unthinkable.” He sermonized that the troubles between Israelis and Palestinians had but one prudent remedy: binationalism. In a surprise to no one, least of all Judt himself, this exercise in unthinkable thinking touched off a maelstrom of controversy. He was rapidly excised from his perch on the masthead of The New Republic. The conservative pundit David Frum charged Judt with “genocidal liberalism.” A “pro-Israel” media watchdog group accused him of “pandering to genocide.” But everything was not critical. Writing in The Nation, the leftist critic Daniel Lazare breathlessly rejoiced that “a long-standing taboo has finally begun to fall.”

“All of which brings me to page three of the October 9 edition of The Washington Post, which carried an article with the following, cringe-inducing, opening paragraph: “Two major American Jewish organizations helped block a prominent New York University historian from speaking at the Polish consulate [in New York] last week, saying the academic was too critical of Israel and American Jewry.”

“The organizations in question are the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Congress. The academic: Tony Judt. The event, titled “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” was organized by an independent nonprofit group that routinely rents space from the Polish consulate in Manhattan. This is a critical distinction. The gathering was not organized nor sanctioned by the government of Poland.

“The ADL denies exerting pressure or issuing threats. Other accounts vary. (The Polish consul general diplomatically claims that the calls were “very elegant but may be interpreted as exercising a delicate pressure.”) However delicate the pressure, Abraham Foxman, national director of the ADL, was evidently satisfied enough by the cancellation to remark: “I think they [the Polish consulate] made the right decision. He [Judt] has taken the position that Israel shouldn’t exist. That puts him on our radar.”

“I am not sure what it means to be on Abe Foxman’s radar (nor would I like to find out), but the idea that Tony Judt being denied an audience and a microphone is a positive outcome to this dispute is outrageously stupid and counterproductive. Not only has our public discourse been cheapened, but those that seek to shut Judt up will succeed only in turning him into a free-speech martyr. He should not be silenced, he should be engaged, he should be challenged.

“Somewhere in his writings Leo Strauss remarks that the moment “man abandons the task of raising the question regarding what is right – he abandons his humanity.” Questioning, free debate, and diversity of thought are the cornerstones of a decent society. And at least since Spinoza, Jews have benefited from consistent and uncompromising criticism. We – Jews, Israelis, Americans, liberals – must be guarded in defense of these principles.”

Wouldn’t it be great if only that sentiment, that wisdom took hold and grew.

Meanwhile Al Jazeera had a really informative account by Soumaya Ghannoushi about the decline of the nation state in the Arab world which explains a lot of the turmoil we’re confronting today and some realities we may have to accommodate if we’re going to stop it:

“The modern state, we should recall, derives its legitimacy from the right to monopolise and use the instruments of organised violence for the purpose of maintaining internal stability and civil peace on the one hand; and securing its borders, or what is conventionally referred to as national sovereignty, on the other.

“Some Arab states have failed on either or both counts. Of these, the worst and most striking has been its impotence to confront external dangers, be it in Syria, Iraq or Lebanon.

“Official failure to provide adequate defence systems and maintain homeland security has generated a vacuum, which is being gradually filled by non-governmental socio-political movements with armed wings. Lebanon and Palestine are two cases in point.

“Increasingly, the Arab public feels that the political system is unfit to respond to the question of destiny and provide the basics for preserving sovereignty. There is a striking dichotomy at the heart of the Arab state.

“While enormously powerful at home, it is pitifully weak in responding to foreign challenges. A number of inter-related factors have converged to produce this odd state of affairs, geopolitical and structural.

“These are largely to do with perpetual interference in the affairs of the Middle East from the Western powers that continue to hold the reins of its fate, with the superiority of Israeli military capabilities propped up and backed by the US and its allies, as well as with the circumstances surrounding the birth of the Arab state itself.

“For Britain and France – just as it is for the United States today – control of the Middle East was important not only because of their interest in the region itself, but because it corroborated their position in the world.

“Not only was the region rich in raw materials, with cotton from Egypt, oil from Iran and Iraq, minerals from the Arab Maghrib (North Africa), it was a vast field of investment, and a route to other continents.

“For Britain, the sea route to India and the Far East ran through the Suez Canal. For France, routes by land, sea and air to French possessions in West and Central Africa passed through the Maghrib.

“Presence in the region strengthened the two countries’ position as Mediterranean powers and world powers. These vital interests were protected by a series of military bases like the port of Alexandria, military bases in Egypt and Palestine, and airfields in those countries and in Iraq and the Gulf.

“The Arab state replaced the complex network of local elites, tribal chieftains and religious groupings through which the imperial authorities had maintained their grip over the territories they dominated.

“Its mission was the regulation of the indigenous population’s movement, a gigantic disciplinary, punitive and coercive apparatus designed for the purpose of imposing control over the local populations.

“Disillusionment with the official political order and growing cynicism about its ability to preserve a semblance of sovereignty, liberate occupied land, or safeguard national interests has brought new actors onto the stage of Arab politics.

“These non-state players, which include Hizbollah in Lebanon and several armed groups in Palestine, are increasingly occupying the centre of the public sphere in the Middle East, profiting from the declining legitimacy of the political elite tied to the stakes of foreign dominance in the region and lacking popular support to speak of.

“While already fulfilling many of the state’s conventional functions such as the provision of social services like health and education, in countries subjected to military occupation (such as Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine) they are increasingly taking on the state’s defence responsibilities.

“This has earned these movements the admiration of the Arab public, which frequently contrasts their political and military performances in the face of the gigantic Israeli military machine with the redundancy of Arab armies permanently frozen in military stations and barracks.

“In light of the turbulent situation in the region and receding allegiance to the political establishment, it is possible to predict that the coming years could see an extension of this popular model to neighbouring countries acutely sensitive to threats to their security.

“Since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has been evangelising about the “New Middle East”. This rhetoric, which had retreated under the stench of burnt cities and piles of dead Iraqi bodies, has lately resurfaced once more.

“Though certain to leave long-lasting marks on the region’s map, the current frenzy of interventions is unlikely to engender the Middle East Washington and London desire.

“The likelihood is that this new Middle East born in the womb of pre-emptive strikes and proxy wars will neither be American nor Israeli but will gravitate between “deconstructive chaos”, and the rise of popular resistance movements.

“The lesson we would do well to learn from Iraq’s unfolding tragedy is that the Middle East is far too complex, far too unruly for the grand fantasies of conquest and subjugation.

A lot of people find George Bush’s public appearances a tad grating. There’s something in the way he speaks, how he phrases his thoughts, what he says that has been grist for the mill of so many comedians.

Jon Stewart got into this when he appeared on Letterman’s show last night. He said when Bush speaks he often comes across like an 8-year old who has to talk about a book that he never quite got around to reading.

Then Stewart came to Bush’s defence when he said that the president isn’t actually stupid. It’s just when he talks, he acts like he’s speaking to really stupid people. Of course, with the people he’s trying to reach, the type who will still vote for George, you sort of have to talk that way.

Some time ago I tried to figure out Condi Rice’s public speaking style. To me she sounds like someone trying out for the high school debating team. Her words aren’t fluid, she looks like she’s always wrestling to come up with the right word and, even then, is never entirely confident in her remarks.

The one guy who can speak well is Dick Cheney and, well, he’s just evil.

When an occupying power prosecutes its own soldiers for war crimes you can bet that the alleged offence is outrageous. Look at the notable cases out of Iraq such as the killing of 24-Iraqi civilians by a marine unit that had just lost a man to an improvised explosive device. IF those marines are ordered to stand trial and that’s just an if at this point, their defence will be that they were following the rules of engagement. The issue will be not whether they killed unarmed civilians but whether those who pulled the triggers acted “reasonably.”

Counter-insurgency is a genuinely ugly form of warfare, one which western soldiers are ill-equiped to handle. In the current two wars it is typically impossible to determine just what the civilian you’re looking at has in mind. He may be friendly. He may be indifferent. He may be a guerrilla sympathizer. He may be a guerrilla coming to kill you. Every local you see has to be considered a potential, immediate threat.

Once outside their garrison, our soldiers are under constant threat of improvised explosive devices, snipers or attacks by machine guy or rocket-propelled grenade. All too often our people don’t even see the enemy until he opens fire on them. All too often the insurgent simply fades away before he can be attacked and destroyed.

So far, at least, the worst excesses have been solely American but it is the U.S. soldiers who have seen their tours abruptly extended or just get home in time to get orders to go back. Their level of frustration and angst must be palpable, especially for those who don’t see any prospect of victory for their sacrifice.

Do we risk putting Canadian soldiers in the same bind? Quite possibly. We already have a problem with the limited number of troops we can deploy. That means our soldiers will eventually face a rotation burden something like that in the states. I believe our soldiers are better trained, better disciplined and, like the Brits, a lot less “trigger happy” than the Americans. But, eventually, the training and discipline may not be enough.

If we keep running our people back through the same grinder, we have to be prepared for incidents we may not be very proud of. That’s part of the price of putting our soldiers in this situation.

It may take time but Iraq and Afghanistan will get sorted out once the military and political battles are finished. The question is, what will be left when the dust settles?

All of our leaders – American, Brit, even Little Stevie – don’t pass up an opportunity to pitch the urgent need for reconstruction of these countries from the ground up, beginning with infrastructure. We blew up a lot of stuff, the bad guys blew up way more stuff, stuff is still getting blown up. We can see roads that need to be fixed, schools that need repair, essential utilities such as water and electricity that need to be restored. That’s the visible, tangible part of the destruction that has attended these wars. However both countries are suffering another loss, probably just as great in consequence and potentially impossible to fix.

Afghanistan and Iraq have been hemorrhaging their best and brightest, the very people who are most needed to restore civilian society. These include doctors, teachers, engineers. They’re leaving, in droves, for two reasons: better opportunities and to avoid being targetted by insurgents. Guerrillas like to kill these people. Taking them out undermines confidence in the government just as surely as destroying power or water systems. Kill enough and you’ll stampede more out of the country.

From the Washington Post:

“Iraq’s top professionals — doctors, lawyers, professors — and businessmen have been targeted by shadowy political groups for kidnapping and ransom, as well as murder, some of them say. So many have fled the country that Iraq is in danger of losing the core of skilled people it needs most just as it is trying to build a newly independent society.

“‘It’s creating a brain drain,’ said Amer Hassan Fayed, assistant dean of political science at Baghdad University. ‘We could end up with a society without knowledge. How can such a society make progress?’

“Professionals and businessmen with the means to escape are going to Jordan, Syria, Egypt or, if they have visas, to Western countries. Those left behind say they feel abandoned.”

The same story echoes from Afghanistan. The Rand Corporation’s Obaid Younossi travelled to Afghanistan earlier this year to report on the dilemma:

“Talented Afghans are leaving – and few are returning from abroad – because insurgent attacks, threats and criminal activities are still common. As long as Taliban remnants and criminals continue to kill and terrorize Afghans, the nation will not be an attractive place for young people to build their futures.

“In addition, Kabul lacks a steady supply of electricity and clean water. The city’s air is choked with dust and pollution from diesel fuel that is used to run electric generators and from the huge number of cars crammed into a city designed to sustain only a fifth of its roughly four million inhabitants.

“Afghans with an education and the skills in greatest demand know they can earn far more and live far better abroad. For example, university professors make less than $2 per hour in Afghanistan, and licensed physicians make about $100 a month working in a government hospital.

“To stem the brain drain and entice professional Afghans to return, the United States and the international community need to make Afghanistan a better place to live.

“First, security needs to be improved. This will require an intensified effort to train and supply Afghan security forces to maintain peace and order on their own, so they are not permanently dependent on U.S. and NATO forces. In addition, the United States needs to give Afghans concrete assurances that America is their long-term security partner.

“Second, the United States need to work with Afghans to develop a long-term development plan for the nation, and back it with a multibillion-dollar financial commitment lasting at least 10 years. If it can hasten a real peace, this investment in creating a thriving Afghan economy would cost less than spending on continued warfare.

“Third, alternative livelihoods must be found for farmers now growing poppies, the biggest cash crop in Afghanistan and a major source of heroin sold around the world. The illegal drug trade fosters corruption, instability, and disrespect for government and the rule of law.

“Fourth, a system of Afghan government accountability and good governance needs to be established to ensure that U.S. aid is being spent effectively, that corruption is eliminated and that programs are in place to improve living conditions and opportunities for the Afghan people. This means bringing readily available electricity, clean water, better roads and new jobs to Afghanistan.

“Finally, neighboring countries need to be pressured to stop jockeying for more influence in Afghanistan.”

Younossi’s five step plan is easy to understand. It all makes perfect sense. Yet, while it’s easy to understand, achieving it is a Herculean chore.

Fielding forces so small that they have to spend an inordinate amount of time defending themselves from attack isn’t going to get the job done. We’ve already lost five invaluable years and time is a critical factor that is not on our side.

If we’re going to do this, at least let’s give it a decent try. That’s something that Bush, Blair and Harper have been avoiding.

North Korea’s nuclear weapon test (or “nuk you ler” if you’re George Bush) has revived concerns over widespread proliferation.

Some atomic experts believe there are up to 40 nations with the skills, technology and even, in some cases, the materials to build a bomb. According to the New York Times:

“The spread of nuclear technology is expected to accelerate as nations redouble their reliance on atomic power. That will give more countries the ability to make reactor fuel, or, with the same equipment and a little more effort, bomb fuel — the hardest part of the arms equation.

“Signs of activity abound. Hundreds of companies are now prospecting for uranium where dozens did a few years ago. Argentina, Australia and South Africa are drawing up plans to begin enriching uranium, and other countries are considering doing the same. Egypt is reviving its program to develop nuclear power.

“North Korea’s reported test has shaken the nuclear status quo and raised anew the question of whether Asia will be the first to feel a nuclear “domino effect,” in which states clandestinely hedge their bets by assembling the crucial technologies needed to make a bomb, or actually cross the line to become new weapons states. In the Middle East, the confrontation with Iran has focused new attention on countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, both of which fear that an Iranian bomb would make Tehran the greatest power in the region.”

Is the rapid spread of nuclear weaponry inevitable? Perhaps not, if a genuine will exists to stop it. One thing is clear – trying to tackle the problem on a piecemeal, country by country basis, isn’t going to work. There are simply too many players now to go after them individually even if that might work on individual states, and it won’t.

One of the big stumbling blocks to nuclear disarmament is the blatant hypocrisy of the major, nuclear powers. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, they agreed to work to get rid of all nuclear weapons, their own included. While beating newcomers over the head with the NNPT, the key nuclear states conveniently overlooked their own obligations.

Now the very nation the smaller countries fear most, the United States, is led by a man who supports America developing brand new types of nuclear weaponry. To smaller countries, America becomes a growing threat and the experience of India and Pakistan has shown the path to their security may lie in joining the nuclear club.

There may be a solution, one propounded by a Canadian. This comes from Embassy, Canada’s Foreign Policy Newsweekly:

“Former senator Doug Roche has a good idea of what needs to be done to reduce the threat of a nuclear catastrophe. He perseveres in reminding nations in his role as chairman of the Middle Powers Initiative that the critically important Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) has existed for 10 years, but still has no force. The problem is several key nuclear powers have so far refused to sign the treaty: The United States, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea.

“With leadership like that from the U.S., there is every reason to expect that any state that wants to enter the nuclear club as a deterrent to invasion will simply do so. And that is the second reason the North Korean test is bad news in Washington because it smacks of clear diplomatic failure.

“But it’s not too late for a remedy. One way the U.S. could seize the initiative in this dangerous situation would be to sign on right away to the one treaty, the CTBT, that offers a hopeful solution. At the same time, Washington needs to put its weight behind increasingly reliable scientific verification programs, unequivocally agree never to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state, and remove, along with Russia, the thousands of nukes that are still on hair-trigger alert.

“If the U.S. and the other six nuclear rogues will come to the table over this important treaty, the day may still be saved.”

Think about it. Can you come up with anything that makes more sense?

A word of advice to terrorists from The Guardian’s Charlie Brooker:

“If you’re hell-bent on wiping us out, at least put some effort into it. Arm yourself with nothing but a frying pan and a saw, and if you manage to score a bodycount in double figures, then maybe I’ll respect you. Otherwise, up yours. You’re boring.

“Bombs are equally lazy. There’s nothing you can do about a bomb going off, short of psychically foretelling the blast and running away. There’s no sport to it. I’m getting bored of being frightened of bombs. Give me something new to fret about. Here’s an idea: an ankle-height laser beam that sweeps across densely populated concourses in the blink of an eye; a sheet of light slicing everyone’s feet off simultaneously. Imagine the chaos! It’d be more humane too, since there’s a good chance you could surgically re-attach the feet later – although matching each foot to its rightful owner would be a logistical nightmare. Chances are you’d end up with a size 10 and a size three. Still, it’d break the ice at parties.

“Actually, even foot removal is too violent. The thing I don’t grasp about terrorism is why it has to involve violence at all. Detonating a gigantic bag of manure in a crowded space would make the same point far more eloquently – and the victims would still be around to put pressure on the government to do something to ease the crisis. Indiscriminate slaughter isn’t just barbaric and selfish – it’s immature and idiotic. Any budding terrorists reading this now: toss those detonators in the bin and try being man enough to change people’s minds via some other method for once. Girls will respect you. Only wankers kill people. Whether you’re a head of state or a disgruntled fanatic, the moment you get blood on your hands, you’ve become a massive wanker.

“Come to think of it, that’s how the news should be reported. “Thirty people were killed today when a massive wanker blew himself up in a busy marketplace” has quite a ring to it, as does “President Wanker”, or “Prime Minister Wanker”. In fact, why doesn’t every bloodthirsty cretin prolonging this sorry dispute simply paint the word “Wanker” on their forehead and piss off to a remote island somewhere, where they can fight it out with pans and saws while the rest of us settle our differences using non-violent means? We’ve got the imagination to succeed. What’ve they got? Hairy palms and firearms, and that’s about it.”

Seriously though, Charlie has a point here, even if he didn’t really intend it. Terrorism, as the name says, is all about terror. The bad guys are willing to be seen as bloodthirsty killers so long as they get their intended response by scaring the hell out of us. What happens if we simply don’t let them scare us? What if we actually kept these atrocities in perspective?

We may not be able to stop the terrorists from attacking us, at least not right away, but we can refuse to give them what they’re after. In doing that we might, just might, deter the other group that feeds at the trough of terrorism – our own politicians.

There aren’t many benefits to getting older. One of them is being able to remember having heard a particular argument before and recalling how that turned out.

When South Vietnam fell we were prepared for an orgy of killing, a bloodbath of historic proportions. That was, after all, what we’d been told for years would happen if the filthy communists won.

It didn’t happen. Sure some particular enemies of the regime were prosecuted, a few executed, many more sent away to “re-education” camps but the streets certainly didn’t run with blood. In fact, the new Republic of Vietnam actually prevented an enormous amount of bloodshed by invading Cambodia to put a stop the the butchery of the insanely anarchist Khmer Rouge.

We’re now being told that, if the west pulls out of Iraq or Afghanistan, the same thing is going to happen – endless bloodshed of historic proportions. Who says? Once again we’re getting this from that particular group that wants to continue the war without end.

I expect there would be somewhat more bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan than experienced in post-war Vietnam but, for all its faults, even the Taliban isn’t the Khmer Rouge. In both countries there are sectarian issues that will have to be sorted out, assets to be allocated, new alliances and political arrangements to be worked out. It seems unrealistic to expect that could be accomplished without some bloodshed but isn’t that inevitable when different groups suddenly find themselves released from a pressure cooker where they’ve been held for generations?

When Yugoslavia began falling apart, the west didn’t try to remake it. We didn’t tell the Croats, Serbs, Kosovars, Bosnians and Montenegrans that they had to form a state to replace what Tito built. We let them go their own ways. There was bloodshed, of course there was. Some of it got awfully nasty and we had to intervene to prevent what could have turned into ethnic cleansing, perhaps even genocide if it had been left unchecked. There remains a measure of low-level conflict, tensions requiring the presence of peacekeepers but today we have a new Serbia, a new Bosnia, a new Croatia and even an independent Montenegro.

Why do we think we have a right or some duty to prevent the disparate ethnic groups that comprise Iraq and Afghanistan from likewise going their own ways? The answer is plain and its not pretty. These aren’t Europeans, they’re people of the Middle East and instability in either country may threaten the strategic interests of – why, us white folks of course. We can’t be having any of that, no, no, no. Best these folks do as we tell them. Heck we’re even crafting the very governments that will serve – make that “rule” – them.

I think we need to explore the idea of letting these groups go, if that’s what they want, and assisting them by providing security against ethnic cleansing or genocide along with a meaningful effort at reconstruction. Why not? Nothing else has worked.

Once again, New Zealand comes up with an idea that should be adopted elsewhere: making individual politicians personally liable for improper election spending. Here’s an account from the New Zealand Herald:

“For the 50 Labour MPs forced to dig into their own pockets to repay taxpayer money wrongly spent during the election campaign it will not be a a question of how much – but how much they can afford.

“In a new development in the election spending saga, Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen revealed yesterday no set amount had been decided for MPs and cabinet ministers to pay toward the $824,524 fund.

“That would be for caucus to discuss shortly, he said.

“South Auckland list MP David Hereora told the Herald on Sunday yesterday he was not sure whether he could pay the entire amount in one hit, and might have to look at some sort of time-payment arrangement. He was still working out what he afford to pay back and said “that may mean paying it off… it all depends on how rich or broke you are I suppose”.

“The Weekend Herald reported that Prime Minister Helen Clark would have to pay $17,350, Cullen $12,250, Cabinet ministers and Speaker Margaret Wilson $10,800 and ordinary MPs $5900 to a $435,000 kitty. The amounts were calculated on 5 per cent of the MP’s salaries. That money will be on top of the 4 per cent levy already taken from MPs’ salaries for Labour’s coffers. The remainder of the $824,524 would be sought from the public through a website and telephone hotline.

“Cullen said he was not sure how much MPs would have to come up with. “There will be consultation by all of those involved,” he said, but he could not be drawn on whether time payments would be accepted.

“Labour says it will not dispute Auditor General Kevin Brady’s ruling last week that the party must repay money wrongly spent on campaign electioneering, but it is expected a legal challenge will follow after other parties were struck with possibly crippling bills. Brady ruled a total of $1.2 million of taxpayer funds was spent unlawfully on electioneering by every party except Progressive.

“On the website Kiwiblog, an enterprising blogger has calculated the unlawful spending by parties per vote cast. Each Labour vote cost $0.82 and each National vote cost the party 1c.”

Sounds very much like an idea whose time has come.